I expect to be taking a closer look at the Radio New Zealand funding controversy as the week goes on, but now is probably a good time to note a widespread error in reports on the story: the claim that the government funds Radio New Zealand to the tune of $38 million annually.

Radio New Zealand's core funding for 2009/10 is $31,816,000, up from $31,718,000 in the previous year. A small amount of additional funding and $1.9 million from the Ministry of Culture and Heritage to run Radio New Zealand International brings to total to $34,236,000.

The rest of the broadcaster's revenue, $3,818,000, is earned from interest, fees for co-location on its transmission high-sites and other sources. It's a small but significant point, because it dispels the idea that Radio New Zealand is some passive funding sink that wouldn't know how to earn a dollar if it tried. It generates millions of dollars in earned revenue a year and has done for a long time.

GUYON We saw a couple of examples this week that flared up in the media, Radio New Zealand and DOC, both of which were being asked to do some more creative things, or earn some more money, or cut costs in ways that may annoy some people. You went through the 1990s where National lopped pieces off here and there and it upset a lot of people and not always for a lot of gain, I mean do you wonder whether it might be better actually taking if not a big bang approach, then actually trying to make some substantial savings and actually just taking the hit from there?

BILL Well I think what you saw last week was a bit of old style civil service politics where they wheel out something unacceptable and try and get pressure back on the members of parliament, and I was pretty disappointed in those organisations.

GUYON Do you think that's what Radio New Zealand did?

BILL I think that's what both of those organisations were doing, and my advice to them is they can't wait this out, they are capable of being creative and flexible, and providing better value for money, and if they focused a bit more on the services and a bit less on the politics I'm sure they'd get ahead.

GUYON So they were playing politics, wheeling out something that's unacceptable hoping it's knocked down and to try and create some public sympathy?

BILL Well it's an old trick isn't it? But I have to say the majority of the civil service can see their obligation to the public and there is professionalism, I mean they are rethinking how they do business because in two or three years time things in the public sector will be just as tight as they are now.

English is right in one sense: the preposterous idea of abandoning the FM band did not come from Jonathan Coleman, but was suggested by the board in documents obtained by TVNZ. The idea may well have been floated in the full knowledge that it was unacceptable.

But the board has a credible answer to English's injunction that Radio NZ focus on being "creative and flexible, and providing better value for money," from its current operation. To wit: it is, and has been doing that, according to the KPMG review of its baseline funding in 2007, which found no fat to trim at the broadcaster. Indeed, the review found that Radio New Zealand was underfunded and understaffed and did not pay its existing staff enough. In the coming budget year, the shortfall, according to KPMG, will reach about $10 million.

In this light, it's not credible for Coleman and English to claim that Radio New Zealand can bridge the gap simply by being "creative" and "flexible". Perhaps some short-term actions can be taken – selling the Auckland building and leasing back Radio NZ's floor – and perhaps a little more value could be squeezed out of the transmission sites. Sponsorship on Concert FM might bring in a few hundred thousand. but in the long term it's reasonable to wonder what value will be lost to New Zealanders through effective funding cuts for the next five years.

It's also reasonable to wonder whether a more experienced minister than Coleman might have defended his turf more effectively. There's little to be gained from presiding over a shrinking portfolio – your mana shrinks along with the brief, and people hate you for doing it. I'm not sure Coleman has the political skills to turn that around.

---

It was probably no coincidence that some of the loudest cheering at Friday night's inaugural ONYA Awards was for the two awards won by Radio New Zealand's website. What Richard Hulse has achieved there on very modest resources is simply tremendous. Congratultions also to the developers of this site, CactusLab, who won the Best Mobile Application category.

The awards themselves are what the web (and mobile) development industry has been waiting for, and I think they have real credibility. And, of course, the closing spectacle from The Darkroom and Module was extraordinary.

Here's an edit of the closing show. That's me testifying at the beginning:

679 responses to this post

I'm struck by the speed with which the FB site achieved 10,000 members.

It says quite alot about our collective cultural values - Radio NZ is seen by many people as the 'last' cultural bastion where our collective views, voices and sense of us as Kiwis can be heard and explored.

I don't think that the National Party realise this - I think they just applied their ideological blinkers to RadioNZ - but I would hope that they are taking notice of the passion with which many people are 'defending' RadioNZ.

Hmm! I don't want to add any weight to Coleman and English..and most especially Lhaws, with his vile column in the SST yesterday--but I have always had problem with Concert FM being preserved at all costs. Why should one music genre ('Classical', or whatever it might be called these days) be privileged over all other genres? I think it is a cultural hangover from those days when classical music=serious music, and other music was regarded as ephemeral, trivial or merely 'commercial'.This is not to say that I sometimes tune into Concert FM, for a bit of background pleasantry.

It's likely that if classical music is left to the private sector we'll get an endless repeat of RNZ's (excellent for their purpose) Saturday Night Requests - with such classics as Flight of the Bumble, Rustle of Spring and maybe the Hallelujah Chorus. You'll probably have to say goodbye to the development of New Zealand composers. Perhaps I'm in the minority - but I would mind. And I pay taxes.

Perhaps as with public radio here in the US: brief announcements at the top of the hour (and sometimes on the half hour), saying "this programme brought to you by..." Mostly harmless, and once you get used to it, you stop hearing it.

Mind you, it does chop up the airtime into hour-long chunks, which means if you want to play a longer symphony (e.g. Beethoven's 9th, clocking in at 74 minutes, or the maximum length of a CD), you have to get creative.

Notwithstanding the dishonest politics Russell describes, I'd be happy to see money redirected to support music about and of this place, not by long-dead white Europeans whose local audience are amongst our most wealthy - and the most accustomed to subsidy it seems.

That doesn't mean cutting total funding and it doesn't mean ignoring systemic underfunding of the public radio broadcaster function.

Big congrats to Richard for RNZ's brilliant and accessible site. As I've told him, it has been a great example to show people that genuine fair access can still mean stunning rather than boring. A little extra funding there would help take the site to the next stage as media formats change.

You'll probably have to say goodbye to the development of New Zealand composers.

Another strong argument in favor of the axe.

What is the cost of running a second station, a few DJs who crossover onto Nat Rad?

There are plenty of things the taxpayers could pay for that wouldn't cost too much money: hand out free ice-creams in Twizel, translate Beowulf into Maori, provide subsidised parking for people with no vowels in their name; the real question is why should the taxpayer pay for those things? Why should we fund a classical radio station?

not by long-dead white Europeans whose local audience are amongst our most wealthy - and the most accustomed to subsidy it seems.

Actually Sacha, they're not all dead and they don't all come from Europe - and their audience is not all wealthy - but your description could quickly become an accurate prediction if we get Robyn's scenario.

I can't see how it serves the public good for the taxpayer to own a classical radio station.

This riles me quite a bit. Wellington has the NZSO. Auckland and Christchurch have philarmonic orchestras. Classical music, plus all the kinds of less than commercial genres supported by the concert programme, is important to a lot of people in a lot of places around the country and you can't just leave it to the market to look after it. Leave Radio New Zealand Concert the hell alone.

the real question is why should the taxpayer pay for those things? Why should we fund a classical radio station?

Concert FM exists to fulfill obligations under parts of the RNZ Charter, so you'd have to change the charter and/or find room for more Concert-style programming on RNZ National.

It costs about $5 million annually, and had a weekly cume (the number of people who listen to it in a given week) of 138,000 in the last survey -- about 5% of the total 15+ radio market. (The previous survey had a cume of 201,000, or 7%.)

This would make it one of the better-performing stations in a crowded market. With 473,000 listeners, or 17.2% of the total radio market, National vies with Newstalk for the title of most-listened-to radio station in the country.

All these numbers are available in the report I linked to in the post. When Michael Laws wrote in his wretched column yesterday that audience numbers were kept secret, he was -- surprise! -- lying.

I mostly listen to classical music. I just fail to comprehend why the taxpayer should pay for the broadcasting and performance of it.

Classical music, plus all the kinds of less than commercial genres supported by the concert programme, is important to a lot of people in a lot of places around the country

If there were a government owned ice-cream stand giving away free ice-creams in the middle of Twizel then it would (one presumes) be very important to the people of Twizel. But that's not a valid argument. Of course people who like listening to classical music like having their hobby subsidised by the rest of the country.

As Jolisa suggests, the NPR model from the USA would be perfectly acceptable. It less advertising than sponsorship and programme underwriting.

It has always interested me that when arts funding is under threat, there is always a rush to defend the high culture sector (ballet, symphony orchestra et al), with the charge often led by freemarketeers--partly because such consumption is central to their cultural capital. But I guess we should never expect consistency nor self-examination from such folk.

Of course people who like listening to classical music like having their hobby subsidised by the rest of the country.

Yes, Danyl, because classical music and jazz are exactly the same thing as ice cream. And you're right, so let's go down that road. Why have libraries? Why have literary and artistic prizes and endowments? Why have liberal arts and music taught in universities? These are all hobbies after all, aren't they..